Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
On the other hand, I hear people say all that time that even though steroids weren’t policed at all by Baseball, it was “against the law.” If the character clause refers only to baseball, that shouldn’t be part the conversation.
An active MLB manager getting arrested for DUI is a black mark against baseball. He is a very public figure who represents the game whether he wants to be or not.
Posnanski has begun a discussion about character. The ball is on the tee; let's see who'll be the first to take a good whack at it.
I am actually pretty astounded that Idelson has publicly interpreted the clause in this way at this time.
A cursory reading would imply he wants voters to ignore steroids and just judge by the performance on the field.
Why are you surprised? For financial health of the HOF and the other businesses of Cooperstown, he wants players inducted. A cursory reading would imply he wants voters to ignore steroids and just judge by the performance on the field.
That's really all you need to consider about the Hall's reaction to the voting. Why go out of your way to alienate a sizable bloc of voters when the "logjam" is likely to be nothing but a one year blip?
We told you that the logjam (*) would happen, and it did happen, and now that it happened you're certain it's a one year blip. Why? There are still more qualified candidates than ballot slots, and still a problem moving the steroids candidates off the ballot. (Though allowing more ballot slots isn't the answer since many voters aren't using the 10 they do have.)
A couple of years back I asked whether anyone here would be willing to vote a convicted pedophile into the HOF (assuming his baseball performance was up to snuff), and don't recall any takers.
Why the scare quotes?
Do you think the Hall should be concerned about this? It's of course fine to disagree, but I'd be curious as to why.
Boy that's a hell of a question. Obviously that would be a person incredibly difficult to feel comfortable voting for. Honestly if I had a vote and was a working writer I would probably not vote in favor of him simply to cover my ass. I can only imagine the letters to my editor if I voted for someone who did such a thing. I'm not sure that would be the "right" thing to do though.
"Scare quotes" are nothing but a way to employ a term in common usage while denying its accuracy within the context it's being used. It's got nothing to do with any rules of grammar or punctuation.
Of course three of them (McGwire, Palmeiro and Bonds) aren't in because the evidence against them is objectively compelling. Bagwell, Piazza and Biggio are likely to make it in well before 15 years. Clemens and Sosa are the only ones who might conceivably be permanently affected by dubious evidence.
Two out of eight is of course two too many, and there's no defense for writers who vote on the basis of suspicion and dubious evidence alone. But you're still talking about three fairly distinct groups of players, and lumping all together. It's an easy way to oversimplify what's taking place, but it's mixing up apples, oranges and grapefruit in the process.
The logjam has little or nothing to do with roids or the character clause.
The logjam is caused by a ton of good candidates hitting the ballot over a short period of time.
The logjam is caused more by the fact that they refused to wave in obvious candidates, sometimes making them work through 3+ ballots -- Bagwell, Alomar, Larkin, Raines, now Biggio and Piazza -- due to standard issue BBWAA stupidity, not roids
(*) Why the scare quotes? There IS a logjam.
For one year.
It depends on if there's strategic voting or not. I feel like if I were a voter, I might vote for the ten worthy candidates that I felt had the greatest chance of falling off the ballot
I feel like if I were a voter, I might vote for the ten worthy candidates that I felt had the greatest chance of falling off the ballot.
"He was a statute in the field with a .538 OPS but he always gave me an interview"
Refers to how they respected the game, how they treated the game, how they used that character in the contributions they made to their teams.
I definitely take it as trying to shoot down the "are PED users supposed to be worse human beings than racist Cap Anson/crazy Ty Cobb/etc.?" argument that is often made.
I think 60 active HOFers in a given year sounds terribly high. Maybe 30-40 (counting players that debut but eventually become HOFers and HOFers playing out the garbage at the end of a career).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 0.7358 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed